In 1998, Malaysia imprisoned the deputy prime minister for homosexual acts. He was released in 2004, and he now leads the opposition party in parliament. The police have accused him of homosexual acts again--it is still a crime in Malaysia. Malaysian opposition leader accused of sodomy - CNN.com

Do you believe that he should be put in jail for homosexual acts? Asked differently, do you believe that someone should have their legal rights (e.g., freedom) limited because they are homosexual?

Even if you believe that homosexuality is immoral, does that mean that it should be illegal? Does that mean that someone should have limited legal rights? I think it is clear that homosexuality, without anything more, should not have any impact on legal rights. A gay political leader, for example, should have the same legal rights as a straight political leader.

This is the heart of the gay marriage issue. In the 48 states that prohibit gay marriage, people are being denied legal rights simply because they are homosexual. If you don't think we should put people in jail for being homosexual, why do you think we should punish them by denying them the legal benefits of a legal relationship?

What benefits? If you are in a terrible accident and connected to life support, for example, only certain people can decide whether you should stay connected to life support. A spouse can legally make that decision--a boyfriend or girlfriend cannot make that decision.

These rights affect the children of gay parents also. Right now, if a child lives with two unmarried gay parents, only one of the adults is legally a parent. If that parent dies or is incapacitated, the other parent cannot make legal decisions. Imagine this horrible scenario: two gay parents and their child are in an accident. The child is severely injured. The legal parent is killed. The non-legal parent is OK. The child will have brain damage--but there is a 25% chance that experimental surgery will prevent the brain damage. To do the surgery, the doctors must have permission from a legal guardian. The non-legal gay parent is standing right there, but because she is gay, she cannot give permission: the child has brain damage. Is this scenario too far-fetched for you? Then think about simple medical decisions, signing permission slips for school, enrolling the child in little league, etc. The non-legal parent has limited legal authority to do any of those activities.

Why are we legally punishing people simply because they are gay?

Labels: Law

Some politicians and some newspapers are erroneously arguing that the federal courts will be "flooded" with requests from the 270 detainees in Guantanamo Bay.

This is absurd.

In 2004, federal courts handled 92,654 criminal cases. In addition to criminal cases, the courts handled at least 98,000 civil cases (the last year reported is 2002). In total, the federal courts handle at least 190,000 cases per year.

How can an extra 270 cases possibly be a flood?

270 / 190,000 = 0.14% increase. Zero-point-one-four-percent. "Grab the kids, Ma! A flood's a comin'!"

The courts wont be flooded with writs, but the public might get flooded with ridiculous claims by politicians and journalists.

Labels: Law

The US Constitution authorizes Congress to create a patent and copyright system to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." The authors of the Constitution believed that an effective intellectual property system would encourage innovation and advancement. It is only recently that we have started to view the IP system as an entitlement to use the coercive power of the state to make a profit. Dr. Stephen Hilgartner says that the focus of the IP system has gone from encouraging innovation to controlling the use of protected property.

In my opinion, this transition is one of the reasons why we have overly protective patent and copyright laws--do we really need to grant a 75-year copyright to the owners of Battlefield Earth? To fix our misguided IP laws, we will have to return to viewing the patent and copyright system as a way to encourage innovation and stop viewing it as an entitlement system.

I think it is easy to see how patents promote new inventions: by disclosing the invention, other inventors learn new techniques and can build on that knowledge. In other words, science begets science. But it is not obvious how art begets art.

To illustrate how art begets art, I have collected some videos from YouTube. Once we begin to think of art as leading to more art, then I think we can start to design laws that promote progress rather than just enrich corporations.

This series of examples starts with the soundtrack to Beverly Hills Cop (23 years ago!), which includes a song called Axel F (or listen to a short clip). The song was a hit in the mid 80's but was a joke by the 90's.

Unrelated to the song, a Swedish guy recorded his impression of a small combustion-engine in the late 90's and it showed up in various forms around the Internet. This one is probably the most famous and I think it is still funny.

Someone decided to combine the Axel F song with the Swedish car-impersonator and the result is Axel F as remixed by Crazy Frog. So, this art is the result of two prior pieces of art. Without the Axel F song or the Swedish guy's funny noises, we wouldn't have this video. In fact, there are a couple more layers to this artistic work. The Axel F song was commissioned by the Beverly Hills Cop movie producers (itself a piece of art) and the Crazy Frog video includes animation and cinema. This one simple video has many artistic contributors. It is an excellent example of art begetting art.



But, the plot thickens. Crazy Frog is marketed to kids, and the "Frog Brothers" made an awesome lip-sync of Axel F.



Obviously, the shorter brother is the love child of either Martin or Charlie Sheen.

So the movie lead to the song which lead to the remix (the song combined with the funny noises and the video) which lead to the lip synch. Art begetting art begetting art.

But, it gets even better, these guys made a parody of the Frog Brothers!



The parody was amazingly precise. Look at the two videos side-by-side.



Art begets art. This is important because art can connect different ethnicities and cultures.



Argentinean: (It looks like they were watching it in their garage with their friends and decided to record their own version. It is bad, but still funny. They guy in the yellow shirt is more emphatic during the middle part of the video, and the little guy pretends that he doesn't know the words, but he nails most of the "bing bing"s.)



Russian: (Not as good as 15-years later, but it is still pretty good. I wish they would rotate the camera!)



Canadian: (Not bad. The tall guy has watched it a lot. The short guy has to watch the screen and imitate it.)



Icelandic: (They have their own interpretation. It's the tattooed, punk version.)



These Norwegians didn't even bother to put the music in. They are watching it on the computer and mimicking the original. (They also add guns and sex. My property professor once said that all lawsuits are about money or sex. I wonder if this is a related concept.)



British: (They add a butter knife and plastic machine gun. There is nothing quite like two teenage girls imitating crazy frog brothers while licking a butter knife.)



Girls gone froggy. (One of them falls down and runs into the light--too funny.)



Another good parody but with sisters.



Bearded guys: (The black shirt considers himself a serious actor. I think he is in a Weezer cover-band, IT department, or both.)



I don't even know what to call this. It's not exactly a parody. This guy loaded the Frog Brothers into his dance simulation game and played it. (Notice that he has over 2300 combinations and he gets fantastic or excellent each time. He has played this video a lot!)



The authors of this next video say that it is "[a] tribute to you Crazy Frog Bros. You two have made such an impact on our lives."



The last video proves my point. This series of artwork had an impact on these kids and it leads them to make their own art. Art begets art. We need to stop thinking of the copyright system as an entitlement of property rights and go back to designing laws that promote the progress of the arts. Bing Bing.

Labels: Law

Katherine K. Baker is a Professor of Law and Associate Dean at Chicago-Kent College of Law and has an article titled Bionormativity and the Construction of Parenthood in a forthcoming 2007 issue of the Georgia Law Review. A thorough and fascinating article, it provides a model for understanding and analyzing the modern American legal system's regulation of parenthood.

http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/blog/2007/08/bionormativity.html

Labels: Law

Carolyn Shapiro is an Assistant Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law, and she published an article last year titled The Limits of the Olympian Court: Common Law Judging versus Error Correction in the Supreme Court in the Washington & Lee Law Review. In her article, she shows how the Supreme Court's certiorari process has inadvertently led to inconsistent application of some legal standards by lower courts. Additionally, she provides some logical, simple, and compelling solutions for the problem.

http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/blog/2007/07/correcting-error-of-not-error.html

Labels: Law

My latest blog is a technical analysis of a semi-famous hypothetical from law and economics. I imagine that it will be pretty boring to anyone outside of law...

Labels: Law

In the retrial of State v. Safi, the court has banned the use of the words "rape," "sexual assault," "victim," "assailant," and "sexual assault kit." A lot of people think it the judge is crazy, but I don't.

Labels: Law

My latest blog post is about some funny and interesting moments at the Conrad Black trial.

Labels: Law

I now contribute to the Chicago-Kent Law Blog.

My latest post is a review of a law review article written by my Constitutional Law professor.

My first post was about a conference at our school covering Michael Crichton's book Next.

Labels: Law

From a recent article:

SIERRA VISTA, Ariz. Dec 1, 2006 (AP)— A grandmother found with a trunkful of marijuana was convicted of drug running in what prosecutors said was an attempt to earn cash for a bingo habit.

Grandma was addicted to bingo. Yes, addicted - New Scientist reported on research showing that it is possible to be addicted to gambling, shopping, sex, and other things besides drugs:

DAVID had been a normal, happy child, growing up in an English seaside town. But by the time he was 18 he was miserable, withdrawn and rebellious. He skipped school, got angry when confronted, and stole from family and friends. He had a habit to fuel, and it took up all of his time. He lost sleep, had anxiety attacks, and sometimes got violent when he couldn't get what he needed.

David, his parents, and psychologist Mark Griffiths of Nottingham Trent University in the UK, who gathered his case history, have no doubt that David was an addict. It changed his personality and behavior, gave him a high, and dominated his thoughts for four years. The word addict usually triggers images of drug abusers or alcoholics, yet David's "addiction" was not to any chemical. It was to slot machines, the most innocuous-looking of gambling games.

Grandma was addicted, and her addiction contributed to her making some poor choices. Specifically, she decided to break the law to feed her addiction.

Many people believe that we need anti-drug laws to keep drug addicts from committing crimes. Should we have anti-bingo laws? The New Scientist article above highlights a study where research proved that some people are addicted to shopping. Should we have anti-shopping laws?

Drugs are not the problem. Addiction is the problem. Addiction contributes to people making poor choices. We all agree that we don't want drug addicts stealing or killing. But, outlawing drugs doesn't get to the real problem. The problem is not the drug - the problem is the addiction.

As a society, we need to prevent and cure drug addiction, not drug use. By outlawing drugs, we make it harder for drug addicts to get treatment. The irony is painful - the real problem is addiction; the drug laws make it harder to get help for addiction; therefore, the drug laws contribute to the problem.

Labels: Law

Most people agree that the Federal Government does a bad job representing the interests of most Americans. People think that politicians are either controlled by corporations, liberal elites, religious conservatives, special interest groups, or lobbying money. Let's just agree that politicians don't really try to make life better for Americans, but, today, let's not try to figure out who they are trying to make life better for.

Two articles jumped out at me yesterday. First, AP reported that Lincoln Chafee is considering leaving the GOP. Chafee was a moderate (maybe even liberal!) Republican senator from Rhode Island until he lost on Nov. 7. He was the only republican senator to vote against the Iraq war and he would often disagree with the President.

So why didn't he switch parties? The AP reported him as saying, "he stayed with the GOP largely because it helped him bring federal dollars home to Rhode Island."

And there you have it. That is what American federal politics is all about. A few years ago, Tom Daschle got beat in an election partly because his opponent said he didn't bring enough federal money to South Dakota.

In most years, if you want to survive, you have to bring money to your political district. This year was an exception, as was 1994.

If the real motivator in politics is bringing money to your district, why all the talk about abortion, judges, and gay marriage? That brings me to the second article.

This article is about how some republicans that are NOT elected politicians are talking about a carbon tax.

On a purely theoretical level, it's not at all inconsistent for a Republican to advocate a carbon tax. Conservatives prefer taxing transactions to taxing income because it's a way to avoid progressivity; rich and poor get taxed at the same rate. . . . But that's all theory. In the grubby world of practical politics, Republicans are loath to come out in favor of any tax.

In politics, it is necessary to say you believe in X, Y, and Z, but your actions don't have to match your rhetoric. All politicians do this. The only explanation is that the real motivation - the real thing that gets them re-elected is not what they keep talking about.

Money for your district gets you re-elected.

So what?

Changing representatives, changing parties, or even changing campaign finance will not change the political reality. The only thing that will change how politics works is to change what motivates the politicians.

Right now, getting money for their district keeps them in power, so that is what motivates them.

Think about what you want your representatives to do. Then think about ways to create motivations for them to do it. That is how to change the system.

Labels: Law

The US vetoed a UN Security Council ("UNSC") resolution today. Generally that is not a big deal, but the specifics of the vote are suspicious. I think that situations like this damage US credibility (and the UN's credibility). And I think it is much more damaging than scandals like the Oil-for-food bribing.

The draft resolution was critical of Israel's recent military moves in Gaza. I have not followed this latest skirmish closely, so I don't have an opinion about it - plus the point of this article is not Israel's actions. The point is that the vote looks like the US may have abused its veto to protect Israel's reputation. There are 15 members on the UNSC, 10 voted for it, the US voted against it, and the other 4 abstained. Worse, the other 4 are allies of ours - Britain, Denmark, Japan and Slovakia. If Britain really opposed the resolution wouldn't they have voted against it instead of abstaining?

To people outside the US, this looks like we are abusing our power at the UN to further our own policies. TO some it may even seem like the UN is just a branch of our State Dept. and not a neutral place to resolve differences. Both appearances will hurt us in the long run.

Some Americans like to complain that the UN is not a credible place because of the oil-for-food scandal. I disagree. Corruption is part of politics. It's not that we should accept corruption, it is that we should accept that it exists and then try to fight it. All governments have corruption, and all citizens should try to minimize it. If we think the UN should be abolished just because there is corruption, then we should also abolish the US government!

I think that this veto is much more problematic. The oil-for-food scandal was a perversion of the process. Some people covertly manipulated the system and did things that were outside of the rules. (And they got caught). But, this veto is actually part of the rules. The US didn't have to do anything covertly in order to abuse their power.

If other countries think the process is rigged, then they will not want to participate. While the permanent members have vetos, they should use them sparingly or other countries will stop participating and then the veto will mean nothing.

Labels: Law, Middle East

CNN reports that a lawsuit over a lottery ticket has settled out of court. On one side is the family of Kevin Donovan who claimed to have purchased every “Hold ‘em Poker” scratch off lottery ticket in the store and then accidentally threw the winning $1 million ticket in the trash at the store. Donovan died of a heart attack some time after the lottery commission ruled against him. On the other side is Edward St. John, 83, who lives in subsidized housing and regularly searches the garbage discarded winning lottery tickets. Even though the lottery commission had ruled in his favor, they could not pay him while the issue was in court. He agreed to give 86% the $1,000,000 to the family because he was worried that he would die before the case was settled.

To me, this looks like extortion. The law concerning lost lottery tickets is pretty clear. If you are in possession of the ticket, then you get the money. There are some complexities here, but if the facts in the article are true, then the old man is entitled to 100% of the money under the law. The family is using the court system to browbeat him into giving up some money, and that is deplorable.

Let’s look at this from different angles. If Donovan were alive, then this suit would make a little more sense. Donovan would argue that the money was his and that he wanted to enjoy it. But, Donovan is dead and it is his estate that is arguing they deserve to enjoy the money. This is a very minor point, but the estate did not purchase the tickets and, I think, has less of a moral claim to the money.

Now compare the two parties. On the one hand, St. John is worried that the $7000 per year he will get from the lottery winnings will mean that he has to move out of his government housing. Donovan purchased all of the scratch off tickets in the store! Either he (and his estate) is flush with money or Donovan was a compulsive gambler. I think St. John is more sympathetic here.

Now look at the actions of the parties. At 83 years old, St. John routinely digs through garbage to try to make a few extra dollars. Donovan was careless enough with a $1 million lottery ticket that he threw it away. Donovan’s family is willing to tie up the litigation in court long enough to kill an old man rather than defer to the judgment of the lottery commission, while St. John is willing to give up 86% of the money just to resolve the dispute. Again, St. John looks much better.

From a legal perspective, I wonder if St. John can accept his 14% share under the settlement and then immediately turn around and sue for the rest of the money based on extortion. On the one hand, the court might say that he negotiated the settlement in bad faith. On the other hand, good faith dealing is not always a requirement for a valid contract.

In any case, if the facts presented here are accurate, Donovan’s family should be ashamed.

Labels: Law

Since this is just a blog, I have permission to throw some ideas out there without doing thorough research!

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that a local drug dealer has been charged with drug-induced homicide for sealing heroin cut with fentanyl to a Depute Police Chief's son who died after he used the drugs.

A number of things come to mind here. First, the story reports that 185 people have died under similar circumstances in Cook County (where Chicago is located) since spring of last year, yet this is the first time a drug dealer has been charged. This is sad on many levels. It seems that it only occurred to the police that they should prosecute the dealers when one of their own kids died. This smells like favoritism or unequal treatment.

Next, the police chief says that greed killed his son. We will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is also upset by the 185 other deaths and that he thinks greed killed them also. His concept is that the dealer wanted to make more money so he cut the heroin with fentanyl (no one says it is cheaper than heroin - I guess we should just assume that). According to one person, this kid had been buying heroin from the same dealer for two years. According the dad, he had been doing heroin since January. Either way, he was a repeat customer. In any business, it is typically a bad idea to kill your repeat customers. Besides losing a steady stream of income, you get a bad reputation and people that you didn't kill might not want to buy from you. The drug dealer was trying to balance repeat business with his costs. If we were talking about subway using 4% less cheese on each of their sandwiches, we wouldn't call it greed - we would call it smart business. Greed is a strong word here.

But, smart business didn't kill 186 heroin users - bad drugs killed people since last spring in one county. How many people died from tainted alcohol or nicotine cut with some cheaper drug in Cook County? I am going to guess zero. A major problem in this case is that when the government outlaws a product, it looses the ability to regulate that product. Alcohol and tobacco are highly regulated and if someone were selling bad cigarettes, the government would shut it down long before 186 people died. But, since heroin is sold underground, we don't have an effective way to regulate it. Heroin may be more risky than cigarettes, but regulated heroin is much safer than unregulated heroin. The police chief would have more correct if he had said that drug laws killed his son. They certainly had more to do with the 186 deaths than greed.

The police chief admits that he knew his son was doing heroin since January. This is a complicated problem, but if the police chief had known for the last eight months that your kid was doing drugs, what do you think would happen? He would arrest your kid, of course. Let me make a comparison. Let's say the police chief knew his son had killed someone or raped a minor or some other horrible crime. Do you think the chief would just send the kid to counseling? I hope not! I hope that the he would arrest him. Why not treat drug "crimes" the same way? Because they are not the same. We punish drug use with the same severity as other serious felonies like assault, but they don't deserve that type of treatment. The fact that the cop didn't think it was important to arrest his son for drug use shows that he thinks that drugs are not as serious as other crimes. Criminalization of all drug use is absurd and this cops actions show that he agrees on some level.

Labels: Law

http://us.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/16/cancer.teen.ap/index.html

Based on the media reports, I think this case came out the right way. In general, people should be able to make their own decisions. This was complicated because the state should protect children from negligent or dangerous parents, but the parents don't appear to be negligent in this case.

Furthermore, I am disturbed by the trend where we are willing to try children as adults when they commit crimes, but we don't give them the right to make decisions about their own life. If this kid committed a crime, he would likely be eligible for the death penalty; therefore, I think he can decide whether he wants to die from chemo or cancer.

Labels: Law